zoren: Alright, since my last post I have Yusupovs book, the latest C42 games, and I've come to the conclusion that this defense is really hard to play, and the complications usually are very very subtle and too minute to notice until its too late.

I played a series of internet games using the defense and usually the games are usually very interesting, contrary to its reputation.

Its quite amazing how guys like Kramnik, Gelfand, Yue hold perfectly using the Petroff.

FiveofSwords: Im fairly good at accurate calculation, so I actually win a lot as black in the petroff. Im not playing kasparov, of course, but I have beaten many masters. Its true that black has to play accurately, but all those open lines can potentially cut both ways, white can't be flippant himself. And its nice to know that when you see trouble coming in a few moves, as black, you almost always have the option of bailing out and liquidating to an endgame.

Maatalkko: Funny you say that you don't want to face the Cochrane, <acirce>. I was thinking the same thing myself. I can't think of any example of an opening choice being rejected that's more extreme than the Cochrane.

The thing is, it's a slow gambit. The pawns do the work, not the pieces, and if you develop too quickly and exchange a piece or two the opening is dead.

I've been looking to see if there's a knock-down theoretical refutation, and I don't see one. I can't find a model game where Black wins smoothly and White had no improvements. It's remarkably underplayed.

Old as the opening is, the 5. d4 variation only existed beginning in the 1980's. The old method with 5. Bc4+ is looks less strong, but I don't think it's been refuted either.

Everyone assumes it's an unsound gambit without even looking at it, which is probably why it's so underexplored. I think it's a dual conspiracy. White players don't want it to be sound because they don't have the stones to play it. Black players don't want it to be sound because it would ruin the Petrov if people started playing it all the time.

Wouldn't it be funny if the theoretical "perfect tablebase" showed the Cochrane as a refutation of the Petrov?

Maatalkko: My friend and I used to keep playing this same line in the Dragon, where I would play Bh6 at some point. My friend mistakenly believed it to be an unsound variation because there's a trap in it, but if you play it properly it's actually a recognized line. I beat him in that line five or six times in a row, and then told him it had been sound all along. He still didn't believe me.

MaxxLange: <Maatalkko> what does "unsound" mean, anyway? a gambit loses by force?, OK, that's unsound. It gives you worse chances of winning or drawing and better chances to lose, than if you had played a solid line? That's also unsound, OK.

But, I have known amateurs, my fellow class players, who are far too materialistic. If they work up their nerve to play a gambit, they then try as hard as they can to win back the gambit pawn by force! If they can't get back the pawn with equality, they say the gambit is "unsound".

That seems to miss the point, the idea is supposed to be that you get compensation in the form of development, initiative, attack, or positional features, in exchange for giving up some wood.If your attack looks like it is starting to peter out, you should look for a way to sac MORE material, not look for a way to make a draw.

The kind of stubborn duel among friends you describe reminds me of the titanic fight that the strongest and third-strongest guy at my old club had, in the KGA Fischer defense. The stronger guy, who had White, won more of them, of course

Maatalkko: <MaxxLange> Obviously you're a player in some courage to choose that handle. I am learning that opening right now, from "A Startling Chess Opening Repertoire", which also contains good analysis of the Cochrane. Funnily most on Amazon criticize it for recommending the Cochrane, but I don't see why. Petrov is somewhat rare at my strength (Class B) but i'm still pumped to learn it.

I'd say "sound" = white has move sequences that at least draw against all variations and "unsound" = black has move sequences that win against all variations. Of course, that's strictly theoretical, because nobody has or can make a complete tablebase for the opening. We can take a guess at sound or unsound though. Most openings are sound i would guess, even maybe stuff like the Borg or the Albin.

Cochrane: sound or unsound? IDK but if it's unsound that's hard to prove. Cochrane has crushing stats, yet people are too scared to try it.

Maatalkko: The Cochrane looks like so much fun, though, that I might scrap the Max Lange and try the Halloween instead. That's the only other early Knight sac opening, besides Muzio KGA, but everyone plays something else vs King's Gambit. Just being like "F it" and going for it immediately has a strong psychological effect, because most opponents are like "dang, I would never dare to do that", especially in a tournament.

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

Don't post personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific opening and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.